Re: [boost] Name and Namespace for Potential Boost ExtendedFloating-Point

Subject: Re: [boost] Name and Namespace for Potential Boost ExtendedFloating-Point
From: Simonson, Lucanus J (lucanus.j.simonson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-09-01 16:54:28

Sylvester-Bradley, Gareth wrote:
>> So this is the last call for anyone who can't live with it.
> 
> Since you're still asking... :-)
> 
>> 	* I believe we received more positive feedback for "a variation of
>> float...", neither real nor decimal. 
>> 	* The consensus seems to be that the namespace mp is terse and
>> confusing. 
>> 	* Some like the trailing underscore. Most, however, do not favor it.
> 
> +1 all from me.
> 
>> namespace boost
>> {
>>    namespace multiprecision
>>    {
> 
> OK, so far...
> 
>>      class floating { };
>>    }
>>  }
> 
> Please no! I'd expect a class name like this to be a noun (possibly
> preceded by adjectives). Am I alone? 
> 
> My vote goes to the following, already mentioned earlier:
> 
> namespace boost
> {
>   namespace multiprecision
>   {
>     class mp_float;
>   }
> }

I'm OK with multiprecision::floating.  I'm guessing that floating would actually be a template with compile time precision based on previous statements by the author.

template <int precision> //number of bits 
class floating {};

So if the user typed 

using namespace multiprecision;
typedef floating<128> f128;
f128 my_val;

It would be pretty clear, I think, what his intent was.  Also, an instance of such a template isn't mutli-precision anymore, it is fixed precision, so mp_floating<128> is somewhat self contradictory.  If floating isn't a template and has runtime precision then I'd rather see it named mp_float.

I'm only half joking when I say that if it were my library I'd very likely name it multiprecision_floating_point_type.  I use epic length identifiers instead of comments.  A function name is often a whole sentence explaining what the funcion does, eg. rectangularize_negative_by_leaps. I do try to keep the sentence short and to the point, though.  I'm actually getting worse about this as I get older.  The switch to wide aspect ratio monitors has only encouraged this behavior and I now consider 160 characters to be a resonable line length limit.  Perhaps my opinion on naming things should be taken with a grain of salt.

Regards,
Luke